At the end of the day, if people are voting with their feet, then that's a pretty strong indicator that something is amiss. Sure, people come and go all the time, but a loose consensus exists that personal and ad hominem attacks have flourished under the laissez-faire nature of my moderatorial style and have subsequently soured people's experience here.
I've of course talked myself blue in the face to convince people that I'm right, but what the heck? The continued health and vibrancy of MormonDiscussions.com is of paramount importance, NOT my ego. If people insist that there's a better way out there, why not allow them to prove it?
THEREFORE:
MormonDiscussions.com is going to undergo a month-long moderatorial experiment. I've been thinking long and hard about the best way to implement this (which boils down to "what's the easiest and quickest way to discover the optimal moderatorial policy"), and I think this is it:
ITEM #1: Ad hominem posts and personal attacks, even when they occur during the natural course of a thread, will for the next month be considered Telestial-worthy and be moved there. As for the Celestial Forum, the standards will be tighter. Unlike in the Terrestrial Forum, where the offending posts must be "obvious," in the Celestial Forum even a whiff of such a thing will qualify it for reclassification to the Terrestrial Forum. THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT WILL CHANGE. (I.e., there still won't be any bannings, there still won't be any thread closures, etc.)
ITEM #2: In order to carry out the above task, we'll need moderators who believe that such a thing can be done. In other words, moderators who:
- DISAGREE with the way I currently allow things to be run, and/or
- Believe that harmony's exiles--hereafter H.E.s--have left thanks to ad hominem posts and personal attacks and the board culture they have spawned, and
- Preferably both of the above.
ITEM #3:The people who qualify for such duties (so far) are these:
- Scottie, since although he has always complied with my wishes he has openly stated that he disagrees somewhat with my philosophy and would like the moderation to be more along the above lines,
- Harmony, since she has been, at least of late, the strongest proponent of such a modus operandi,
- Marg, since she has been the longest proponent of such a modus operandi, at least as it applies to the Celestial Forum.
Now, liz3564 has kindly stated that she'll go along with any change of moderatorial style, but I don't recall her ever disagreeing with the way I do things (or don't do things), so I'm not sure she qualifies for this new role. Therefore, I'd like her to stick to doing things my way, and let those who disagree with me be the ones who implement their ideas. (Unless I'm wrong, of course. If you secretly disagree with the way I run things, Liz, then by all means, let's add you to that list.)
Is there anyone else I'm missing? If the list in Item #2 describes you, then by all means, please volunteer and I'll sign you up, too. IF YOU'VE EVER COMPLAINED ABOUT THE WAY I DO THINGS, **NOW** IS YOUR CHANCE TO PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS. THOSE WHO FAIL TO DO SO RUN THE RISK OF HAVING THEIR COMPLAINTS SUMMARILY DISREGARDED IN THE FUTURE.
ITEM #4: I will not be involved with the experiment. Like I said to/about Liz, I won't be doing things any differently than I already do. Sure, I might fix a formatting error here or there, but that's it; the new moderators (only) will be ones implementing their ideas. This means that, unlike the way things currently are, I am not the final authority on moderatorial decision appeals. Why won't I be involved? Because I want those who believe it can be done to be the ones who field the (inevitable?) complaints, since the consequences of such policies can't be experienced otherwise.
If you have a complaint about how one of your posts was treated, hash it out with the person who dealt with it. If you can't get the issue resolved, call for a moderatorial consensus from the other, non-involved moderators. In other words, DON'T COME TO ME WITH A CONCERN OR COMPLAINT. Not because I don't care, of course, but only because it's necessary that I withdraw in order for the experiment to have the maximum chance of success.
ITEM #5: Whenever a moderator moves a post or splits a thread, he/she MUST add a note to it that contains A) his or her name, and B) the reason(s) why the action was taken. This is so people know who to contact in case of a concern or complaint.
ITEM #6: The H.E.s must all be contacted, A) informing them that they've finally gotten their wish and the board will, for a time at least, be more to their liking, and B) requesting them to return for a while and give it another chance.
ITEM #7: If you wind up dissatisfied with what ends up happening, I respectfully request that if you get fed up and leave, you come back at the end of the experiment and hash it all out with us.
ITEM #8: The new moderators will have moderatorial privileges only as long as the experiment lasts, i.e. one month, subject to Item #9, below.
ITEM #9: Once the experiment is over, EVERYTHING goes back to the way it was pending a big pow-wow to discuss what was learned and come to a consensus as to whose way was best. Once all of us have put our heads together--which includes EVERYONE, even those who weren't moderators--THEN we'll discuss which policies and/or moderators should remain in place.
ITEM #10: Don't sign up to be a moderator simply because you want to get back at someone you don't like. IF THE POINTS IN ITEM #2 DON'T APPLY TO YOU, DON'T SIGN UP.
That's all I can think of for now. If I remember more, I'll post them. For now, though, it's time to set up the experiment by getting all the "new moderators" onboard.
So, first things first. Other than the folks in Item #3, who else wants to be brought onboard?
.